In order to improve the standard of living for all we must be economical with our resources.

[Deleted member 608654]

Much of capitalism, which is buying things to appease others and to further your own selfish desires, is incompatible with this belief. Instead of buying the latest device which would only give you little additional utility, why not devote the money to bringing remote and impoverished fast and reliable internet, this could provide a much bigger benefit to a wider group of people.

 

[KleinesSinchen]

The internet is the most resource hungry machine we have (consisting of billions of connected devices). A good chunk of that energy is needed to power any form of video streaming. The internet could be used to save energy on the other hand ("Home Office" for example).

Improving the ""standard of living" is often the opposite than being careful with resources. In order to reduce out ecological footprint we need to turn down our expectations and demands.

Looking around here, I see people driving their car 200 meters to the mailbox or starting the big engine to buy fresh buns on Sunday morning. The smartphone needs to replaced each year or at least every two years. The previous full-HD TV is not enough and doesn't have Netflix app integrated… Here we go: 4K!
Traveling across the world, with a plane – of course. The quality of a vacation is directly proportional to the distance of the destination from home.
I could go on forever.

Our economical system is built in a way that is requires constant growth in order to persist. In a finite world with finite resources, the exponential function will win at some point.

 

[Deleted member 608654]

But the Internet is necessary for many people. Maybe we could power it with renewable energy like solar or geothermal.

The internet is the most resource hungry machine we have (consisting of billions of connected devices). A good chunk of that energy is needed to power any form of video streaming. The internet could be used to save energy on the other hand ("Home Office" for example).

Improving the ""standard of living" is often the opposite than being careful with resources. In order to reduce out ecological footprint we need to turn down our expectations and demands.

Looking around here, I see people driving their car 200 meters to the mailbox or starting the big engine to buy fresh buns on Sunday morning. The smartphone needs to replaced each year or at least every two years. The previous full-HD TV is not enough and doesn't have Netflix app integrated… Here we go: 4K!
Traveling across the world, with a plane – of course. The quality of a vacation is directly proportional to the distance of the destination from home.
I could go on forever.

Our economical system is built in a way that is requires constant growth in order to persist. In a finite world with finite resources, the exponential function will win at some point.

However，I do agree that we need to stop buying upgrades for the sake of them and make the most of what we already have.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Much of capitalism, which is buying things to appease others and to further your own selfish desires,

Ehhh. Not really.
I would describe capitalism as the resource management system that puts power in the hands of the (ultra) wealthy.
Most people aren't selfish. The closest thing to "selfish" Is when you have rent covered, food covered for a month, and are unwilling to help a homeless person.

But even then it doesn't get to the crux of the issue.
Your not holding it because your selfish. Your holding it because how insecure your job is.
In a lot of state employers can just fire you at the drop of the hat. And thus, turn you homeless.
But we then have to ask how the homeless person got there.
Recently I believe it was one of the us banks went on to say that too many people are employed. Now to you that sounds absurd. To me it doesn't. Because homelessness is the pinicle of "if you don't comply with our conditions, this is where your life will be"
It's coercive. Here in the states even the ability to get drinking water is commodified. To Europeans that sounds insane and absurd. But that's where we are. A thing we need to live a commodity. And in some places the drinking water is so bad from the tap due to deregulation, that people are forced to buy soda. Because that's cheaper than water.

Simply put, this entire system is designed to put money into the pockets of the few. And as a result, power into the few. The rich live longer because they can access healthcare. While the rest of the people in the united States can't without occurring some absurd massive bill.

Society as whole (including whatever goverment and or resource management system) should not even have these problems. Yet we do.
Back to the homeless person. He could of got fired. And due to how tight our leash is, a lot of us miss even a single day of work, and that may difference between having and keeping our homes, or not.
So getting sick is a pently all on itself. We get the least amount of vacations, despite productivity reportly being higher than ever before. Or there is simply no jobs. Either phased out from the invetible progress of technology or managers looking to make more profits by cutting jobs and deligating the original jobs responsibilities onto current workers. They don't get a choice, not in the us. You even speak the word union and the company will do everything it can to shut it and you down.


When we have more houses then people. Yet somehow still have a homeless crisis. We overproduce food, yet still have hunger problems. We have the most advance medicine we can provide. Yet people are still dying to amonia, or dying to perfectly preventable causes. (Referencing insulin prices being absurd. Even though the actual cost to make it is low)

This is the problem with captalism. Profits over people.

Back when covid hit. Landlords were complaining that they lost 15% of revune while owning a private jet. There's also studies showing that top 10% disproportionally use more resources than the bottom 90% in day to day life.

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US ON THE BOTTOM 90% could pull such bullshit. (That's not an excuse to start doing it. It means that it shouldn't even be a thing. Use public planes since economy of scale.

 

[LainaGabranth]

We can improve the standard of living by abolishing capitalism, but y'all aren't ready for that conversation.

 

[Deleted member 608654]

Ehhh. Not really.
I would describe capitalism as the resource management system that puts power in the hands of the (ultra) wealthy.
Most people aren't selfish. The closest thing to "selfish" Is when you have rent covered, food covered for a month, and are unwilling to help a homeless person.

But even then it doesn't get to the crux of the issue.
Your not holding it because your selfish. Your holding it because how insecure your job is.
In a lot of state employers can just fire you at the drop of the hat. And thus, turn you homeless.
But we then have to ask how the homeless person got there.
Recently I believe it was one of the us banks went on to say that too many people are employed. Now to you that sounds absurd. To me it doesn't. Because homelessness is the pinicle of "if you don't comply with our conditions, this is where your life will be"
It's coercive. Here in the states even the ability to get drinking water is commodified. To Europeans that sounds insane and absurd. But that's where we are. A thing we need to live a commodity. And in some places the drinking water is so bad from the tap due to deregulation, that people are forced to buy soda. Because that's cheaper than water.

Simply put, this entire system is designed to put money into the pockets of the few. And as a result, power into the few. The rich live longer because they can access healthcare. While the rest of the people in the united States can't without occurring some absurd massive bill.

Society as whole (including whatever goverment and or resource management system) should not even have these problems. Yet we do.
Back to the homeless person. He could of got fired. And due to how tight our leash is, a lot of us miss even a single day of work, and that may difference between having and keeping our homes, or not.
So getting sick is a pently all on itself. We get the least amount of vacations, despite productivity reportly being higher than ever before. Or there is simply no jobs. Either phased out from the invetible progress of technology or managers looking to make more profits by cutting jobs and deligating the original jobs responsibilities onto current workers. They don't get a choice, not in the us. You even speak the word union and the company will do everything it can to shut it and you down.


When we have more houses then people. Yet somehow still have a homeless crisis. We overproduce food, yet still have hunger problems. We have the most advance medicine we can provide. Yet people are still dying to amonia, or dying to perfectly preventable causes. (Referencing insulin prices being absurd. Even though the actual cost to make it is low)

This is the problem with captalism. Profits over people.

Back when covid hit. Landlords were complaining that they lost 15% of revune while owning a private jet. There's also studies showing that top 10% disproportionally use more resources than the bottom 90% in day to day life.

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF US ON THE BOTTOM 90% could pull such bullshit. (That's not an excuse to start doing it. It means that it shouldn't even be a thing. Use public planes since economy of scale.

That's why the vast majority of people won't matter in the long run, because any chance of them being able to contribute to society in a profoundly positive way has been quashed by the elite, who have the privilege of wealth to improve the condition of our planet and its people, but squanders it on mansions, private jets, and fancy cars. It's just like America, whose geography blessed it with power, space, and influence, but is collapsing from within through government and unsustainable auto infrastructure. Truly, privilege is wasted on the privileged.

 

[Deleted member 608654]

When we have more houses then people. Yet somehow still have a homeless crisis. We overproduce food, yet still have hunger problems. We have the most advance medicine we can provide. Yet people are still dying to amonia, or dying to perfectly preventable causes. (Referencing insulin prices being absurd. Even though the actual cost to make it is low)

So the rich create scarcity from abundance to appease shareholders.

No wonder why Cuba, China, and Vietnam turned to communism because the capitalist west always gave them the short end of the stick.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

No wonder why Cuba, China, and Vietnam turned to communism because the capitalist west always gave them the short end of the stick.

and commonly when they tried, the united states didn't have any of that, and pulled every measure they could to severely hamper it. See the time when the United States invaded cuba and overthrew their democratic government.(which is apart of why the cuban missle crisis happen. It wasn't because Cuba wanted to threat the United States, it was because they were tired of being mess by them. And needed some form of deterrent, which is when the USSR came by)
(or just Vietnam. The reason we got involved was because the States was afraid of them going communist, regardless if the people may of actually wanted to do so)

 

[DJPlace]

is this topic about you give something to someone or keep it youself?

 

[Deleted member 608654]

and commonly when they tried, the united states didn't have any of that, and pulled every measure they could to severely hamper it. See the time when the United States invaded cuba and overthrew their democratic government.(which is apart of why the cuban missle crisis happen. It wasn't because Cuba wanted to threat the United States, it was because they were tired of being mess by them. And needed some form of deterrent, which is when the USSR came by)
(or just Vietnam. The reason we got involved was because the States was afraid of them going communist, regardless if the people may of actually wanted to do so)

Why did US actively oppose communism just because of russian ties. Why didn't they go down there and learn why these countries did those drastic measures? This is why language is important, even though we split up with Britain, soon enough relations were restored because of the anglophone connection to a strong power. The rusophone nation of the soviets made them inaccessible and alien to Americans, naturally the Americans were against russia.

 

[Deleted member 608654]

is this topic about you give something to someone or keep it youself?

about sacrificing personal gain for mutual benefit.

 

[DJPlace]

about sacrificing personal gain for mutual benefit.

i use to do that.... but then fucking gorvement screwed me over with SSI. so i'm now and always be a greedy bastard.

 

[Deleted member 608654]

i use to do that.... but then fucking gorvement screwed me over with SSI. so i'm now and always be a greedy bastard.

I'm sorry to hear that, what went wrong with the SSI?

 

[Deleted member 586536]

Looking around here, I see people driving their car 200 meters to the mailbox or starting the big engine to buy fresh buns on Sunday morning. The smartphone needs to replaced each year or at least every two years. The previous full-HD TV is not enough and doesn't have Netflix app integrated… Here we go: 4K!
Traveling across the world, with a plane – of course. The quality of a vacation is directly proportional to the distance of the destination from home.
I could go on forever.

I'm going to borrow this talking point and critique it a bit. To say now, yes your right, but the blame is not on ordinary people.

Let's take phones for a second. The reason people buy new ones, despite their current working one, is generally around planned obsolescence, difficulty of repair (either intentionally a nightmare to repair, or locking things) and advertising.

Starting with planned obsolescence and repair. I'll just cite apple for this one. As the battery degrades, the performance of the phone decreases. Now this wouldn't be an issue, if the phone was easily repairable, or you at least had access to the battery and could easily switch it out.

But you don't. You also don't get any reasonable access to purchasing that battery (if you want a apple genuine branded battery for the longest time, you had to haverest out of another one), let alone a manual to dissemble the phone. Ontop of course, apple locking parts to the device. If you switch a home button from say, a iphone 7, to another iphone 7. The home button would be rendered unusable.

And sadly, apple isn't the only one doing it. Samsung has started doing it as well. This adds unnecessary waste and forces a dependence on those companies. And commonly the price of repair from them, is more than a new phone. So people just buy a new phone.

The real issue is again, the ceo's and managers. (and overall the system we live in)

Now onto marketing. People don't choose to be unhappy with their stuff (tv's for example) they become unhappy with it because of advertising. A entire thing that is exclusive to capitalism. entire industries are built upon it, even though it gives 0 value back and acts a resource hog. It's designed to get people to buy more, even if they don't need it. If this system was built around sustainability, it would not be profitable, as instead we'd just be replacing parts as they fail, or create designs that enable upgrading of parts without having to buy a entirely new set. Reducing waste by only removing what needs to be removed, and keeping what already works.

traveling itself isn't a problem on it's own. It becomes a problem if it's extremely frequent, and not resource efficient.
if your flying in your own private jet, that's horribly inefficient. Which suprise, top 10% commonly does that.

Or do things that poor people just don't do, because we can't afford it. Some folk like heating their garages... Heating their garages. To me that's an incredibly foreign and stupid idea. But nope they do that. Or buy idk, 10 cars because you need 10 cars (hello Elon musk)

Oh god great now I'm reminded of our car centric cities, where most of it is unwalkable for pedestrians, and designed around cars. Instead of idk... making cities walkable? and not car hell? that would EASILY cut down emissions if I could safely walk to work or bike, without having to worry about getting mowed down. (let alone sidewalks being absent on my street I should add... for a good stretch of the walk... or lacking of cross walks) getting to my job would be so much more possible without a car.

 

[Deleted member 586536]

but then fucking gorvement screwed me over with SSI.

I wish that I was surprised. I wish you best of luck and safety.
reason I'm not surprised is:
Republican party (and democrats) have been playing the game of constantly cutting public safetynets or making it even harder to obtain. For republicans it's because "well SSI (or insert public safetynet here) makes people lazy and not work" Even though people usually try to get it because conditions are bad and are in need of it. Since you know, it's demoralizing to an extent that you need to ask for help. Democrats tend to usually just mask it behind some bill they are passing (though less absurd. doesn't make them good either)

 

[Deleted member 571007]

it's designed to get people to buy more, even if they don't need it. If this system was built around sustainability, it would not be profitable, as instead we'd just be replacing parts as they fail, or create designs that enable upgrading of parts without having to buy a entirely new set.

Great example of this is when Hoover Vacuums came into the general consumer space. They were made remarkably well for their time, so much so that I actually still have a working one in my Grandmother's home (for reference these things were made in the early 1900s) The company mass producing these then realized that their profits fell almost immediately after a few months because.. the damn things didn't break. Thus was born a major part of Capitalism, as you said.. planned obstinance.

After that fiasco since they realized their profits went to shit, they then created a new line, advertised it as better - yet they specifically designed them to fail after a given amount of time; which then forced people to buy more. End result? More profit without giving a shit about what they're wasting.

 

[Deleted member 608654]

I'm going to borrow this talking point and critique it a bit. To say now, yes your right, but the blame is not on ordinary people.

Let's take phones for a second. The reason people buy new ones, despite their current working one, is generally around planned obsolescence, difficulty of repair (either intentionally a nightmare to repair, or locking things) and advertising.

Starting with planned obsolescence and repair. I'll just cite apple for this one. As the battery degrades, the performance of the phone decreases. Now this wouldn't be an issue, if the phone was easily repairable, or you at least had access to the battery and could easily switch it out.

But you don't. You also don't get any reasonable access to purchasing that battery (if you want a apple genuine branded battery for the longest time, you had to haverest out of another one), let alone a manual to dissemble the phone. Ontop of course, apple locking parts to the device. If you switch a home button from say, a iphone 7, to another iphone 7. The home button would be rendered unusable.

And sadly, apple isn't the only one doing it. Samsung has started doing it as well. This adds unnecessary waste and forces a dependence on those companies. And commonly the price of repair from them, is more than a new phone. So people just buy a new phone.

The real issue is again, the ceo's and managers. (and overall the system we live in)

Now onto marketing. People don't choose to be unhappy with their stuff (tv's for example) they become unhappy with it because of advertising. A entire thing that is exclusive to capitalism. entire industries are built upon it, even though it gives 0 value back and acts a resource hog. It's designed to get people to buy more, even if they don't need it. If this system was built around sustainability, it would not be profitable, as instead we'd just be replacing parts as they fail, or create designs that enable upgrading of parts without having to buy a entirely new set. Reducing waste by only removing what needs to be removed, and keeping what already works.

traveling itself isn't a problem on it's own. It becomes a problem if it's extremely frequent, and not resource efficient.
if your flying in your own private jet, that's horribly inefficient. Which suprise, top 10% commonly does that.

Or do things that poor people just don't do, because we can't afford it. Some folk like heating their garages... Heating their garages. To me that's an incredibly foreign and stupid idea. But nope they do that. Or buy idk, 10 cars because you need 10 cars (hello Elon musk)

Oh god great now I'm reminded of our car centric cities, where most of it is unwalkable for pedestrians, and designed around cars. Instead of idk... making cities walkable? and not car hell? that would EASILY cut down emissions if I could safely walk to work or bike, without having to worry about getting mowed down. (let alone sidewalks being absent on my street I should add... for a good stretch of the walk... or lacking of cross walks) getting to my job would be so much more possible without a car.

Corporations and casinos have the same goal, exploit people's desires in order to profit from them.

 

[Deleted member 608654]

Great example of this is when Hoover Vacuums came into the general consumer space. They were made remarkably well for their time, so much so that I actually still have a working one in my Grandmother's home (for reference these things were made in the early 1900s) The company mass producing these then realized that their profits fell almost immediately after a few months because.. the damn things didn't break. Thus was born a major part of Capitalism, as you said.. planned obstinance.

After that fiasco since they realized their profits went to shit, they then created a new line, advertised it as better - yet they specifically designed them to fail after a given amount of time; which then forced people to buy more. End result? More profit without giving a shit about what they're wasting.

Toyota had built it's reputation on reliable vehicles and gained a large following for their high quality products, now it's the world's largest automaker. Chrysler and GM just built unreliable gas guzzling SUVs and pickups with high profit margins, so when the great recession came in, their revenue dropped and the gov had to bail them out. Even to this day, they are struggling to gain much relevance outside North America and in GM's case china, all because they underestimated the Japanese newcomers at the wake of the oil crisis.

 

[Deleted member 608654]

If this system was built around sustainability, it would not be profitable.

Not always the case.

 

[Deleted member 571007]

Not always the case.

It may not always be the case long-term. But people generally try to get the highest amount of profits, in the shortest amount of time. Corporations have a tendency to exploit the most profitable margin, then move onto the next until they fade. It's not always about providing a genuine service, rather gaining profits through exploitative means.

Sure it's not always the case, but generally you can count on it being so.